William, While I think that posts here on a particular part of functionality (e.g. Solaris port) *continuing to work after an update* should not happen here, only posts on particular parts of functionality *ceasing to work* should be welcome (Dave, please take the note), (while such posts would still be appropriate on a list that specifically concerns the particular part of functionality (e.g. sage- solaris)), since when do you talk for "the people on sage-devel"?
Please take down that date - the date of the beginning of the demise of Sage project, as we know it... :-) No, seriously - OK, you are moderating sage-devel; you are concerned about too much traffic going on here on a particular issue. But this does not mean you need to act and sound dictatorially, at least not in this particular case. Whereas, IMHO, creation of sage-solaris and in particular the tone of the ensuing discussion here falls under the latter pattern. The vast majority of the developers here are interested in only (and understand only) a small part of Sage functionality. It makes nevertheless little sense to try to separate the traffic here, and them, into the corresponding sub-lists. So, indeed, people interact here on Sage topics that are related to development, and often have little, if any, intersection. Bringing out and maintaing a Solaris port is one of stated Sage goals, and, yes, it requires interaction here. Dave, I think it's a misunderstanding of the purposes of sage-solaris that brings us to this point. (see the 1st sentence of the message). I think it makes sense to gave a separate sage-solaris to discuss and broadcast ongoing issues with the port, while, indeed, discussions about blocker level issues, in particular when the port gets broken by some patch, can and should be here on sage-devel. Best, Dima On Mar 18, 8:00 am, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > > > > > > <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > William Stein wrote: > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > >> <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > >>> I started a build of Sage 4.3.4.rc0 on 't2' and one of my own SPARCs. The > >>> build on 't2' is still going but it completed on on of my SPARCs at home. > >>> I > >>> just started to run the long doctests. > > >> Yeah! All this successful work on Sage+Solaris is great. > > > Yes. > > >> To > >> celebrate, I've created a new mailing list: > > >> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-solaris > > >> which is for all discussions related to Solaris and Sage. I would > >> like to encourage *everybody* reading this with an interest in Solaris > >> to subscribe, and also like to strongly encourage new threads that are > >> only relevant to Solaris/Sage to get posted there (rather than > >> sage-devel). > > >> -- William > > > Personally I think that was a *very* bad idea. 95% of people won't read the > > list, so 95% of people will not read particular problems that were created > > by others that have an impact on Solaris. > > Out of respect to the people on sage-devel, *you* should post to > sage-solaris about solaris-only relevant issues. > > Sorry to have to call you out on this so publicly. > > William > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
